Work social supports, role stressors, and work–family conflict: The moderating effect of age

Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Work social supports, role stressors, and work–family conflict: The moderating effect of age Russell A. Matthews a,*, Carrie A. Bulger b, Janet L. Barnes-Farrell c a

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 213 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Department of Psychology, Quinnipiac University, 275 Mount Carmel Avenue, LW-LIB, Hamden, CT 06518, USA c Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Unit 1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 February 2009 Available online 30 June 2009 Keywords: Work–family conflict Age Life course Social support Work stress

a b s t r a c t The current study examined whether important distinctions are masked if participant age is ignored when modeling relationships among constructs associated with the work–family interface. An initial omnibus model of social support, work role stressors, and work–family conflict was tested. Multiple groups analyses were then conducted to investigate possible age differences in the patterns of relationships among these constructs for three age groups (28 and under, 29–45, and 46 and older). Several constructs in the model, including role stressors, social support, and work–family conflict, demonstrated mean level differences across the three age groups. Of greater significance, the relationships of some sources of social support and work–family conflict with other constructs in the model differed as a function of age group. Results suggest that conclusions drawn from the omnibus model take on a slightly different and more complicated meaning in the multiple groups analysis. These results have implications for how future research on the work–family interface should be conducted. Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It has been theoretically posited (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and empirically demonstrated that the work domain can and does interfere with the family domain (i.e., work-to-family conflict), and that the family domain can and does interfere with the work domain (i.e., family-to-work conflict; cf., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Thus, there is growing interest in investigating ways that work–family conflict may be prevented (e.g., Byron, 2005; van Daalen, Willemsen, & Sanders, 2006). To this end, a growing body of literature supports an omnibus model which shows that work-related social support, originating both internal and external to the work domain, affects how workers respond to various role stressors, including work–family conflict (e.g., Baruch-Feldman, Schwartz, Brondolo, & Ben-Dayan, 2002; Carlson & Perrewe, 1999). We define work social support as a form of social support that helps individuals accomplish their work. Here we examine work social support as a construct with sources stemming from both the work and family domains. In the work domain, we focus on work social support perceived to come from coworkers as well as supervisor(s). In the family domain, we focus on the workrelated support perceived to come from family members (e.g., Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002; Greenglass, Burke & Konarski, 1998). Parasuraman and Greenhaus (2002) identify the ‘‘relative neglect (p. 300)” of individual differences in studies on work– family conflict as a gap in the research. To further develop our understanding of how social support is related to work role stressors and work–family conflict, there is a need to examine how relationships in general omnibus models may differ

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 225 578 4125. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.A. Matthews). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

79

based on important individual differences variables. Given the changing demography of the world’s workforce (Schultz & Adams, 2007), one individual difference variable that is beginning to receive attention is worker age (e.g., Gordon, Whelan-Berry, & Hamilton, 2007; Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002). Based on research suggesting that age may factor into perceptions of and responses to stressors (Barnes-Farrell, 2005; Jex, Wang, & Zarubin, 2007), we suggest that important relationships may be masked if worker age is ignored when statistically modeling constructs relevant to the work–family interface. To better understand how work social support is related to work role stressors, and how work role stressors are related to work–family conflict, we must also look for ways to understand the relative impact of perceived availability of work social support and how these sources of support may function differently for workers of different ages. 1.1. Support, stressors, and work–family conflict: The omnibus model In line with past research, we propose that perceived work social support from coworkers and supervisors is negatively related to experienced work role stressors (e.g., Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Fisher, 1985; Kumari & Sharma, 1990; Pompe & Heus, 1993; Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). The general mechanism behind this relationship is that when individuals perceive they have a high level of social support to draw on, they are less likely to appraise their environment as threatening, or stressful (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Work role stressors are in turn predicted to be positively related to experiences of work-to-family conflict. This prediction follows the traditional stressor– strain relationship prevalent in numerous models of stress (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The two work role stressors of interest in the current study are role conflict and role ambiguity. We define role conflict as being present when incompatible expectations exist for the behavior of an individual within a role, irrespective of time pressures (Biddle, 1986). Role ambiguity is conceptualized as existing when expectations are insufficiently clear to guide behavior (Biddle, 1986). We recognize that other types of role stressors exist (e.g., role overload), however, we focus on work role conflict and work role ambiguity in the current study because of their strong theoretical and empirical linkages with experiences of work–family conflict (e.g., Barling & Macewen, 1992; Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Fisher & Gitelson, 1983). These relationships are formally stated below.  Hypothesis 1: Supervisor and coworker social support are negatively related to work role conflict.  Hypothesis 2: Supervisor and coworker social support are negatively related to work role ambiguity.  Hypothesis 3: Work role conflict and work role ambiguity are positively related to work-to-family conflict. We now turn to how work social support provided by family and friends might be directly related to work-to-family conflict. If an individual perceives that he or she has access to work social support from his or her family this suggests that family is a support mechanism which may be drawn upon when managing various job demands. Additionally, perceived support from the family for work is an indicator that the individual feels his or her family is aware of the demands faced at work. Because of this increased awareness, two potential mechanisms may produce lower family-to-work conflict. First, family members may be less likely to intrude upon the work domain because they are aware of and supportive of the individual’s existing work demands. Second, when interruptions from the family domain do manifest, the individual is less likely to interpret them as conflicting because they believe their family would only intrude for important reasons (Carlson & Perrewe, 1999; Cohen & Wills, 1985). On the other hand, when individuals feel their family is supportive of their work they are also less likely to experience work-to-family conflict (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006). Perceived support may enable these individuals to feel better able to adjust and to flex their family life such that their work life does not conflict with their family life (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006); the social support these individuals receive from their families allows them to prevent work from interfering with the family domain. Stated formally:  Hypothesis 4: Family social support is negatively related to both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. The next two hypotheses focus on how work-to-family and family-to-work conflict are related to one another. First, we propose that family-to-work conflict acts as an individual-level stressor which in turn exacerbates experiences of work role stressors (Bellavia & Frone, 2005). Empirical support for this proposition can be found in work by Frone et al. (1997) who report that family-to-work conflict was positively related to experiences of work role overload. As such, and in line with Hypothesis 3, family-to-work conflict is indirectly related to work-to-family conflict via experienced work role stressors (i.e., work role conflict and work role ambiguity) which are exacerbated by experiences of family-to-work conflict. Building on this pattern of relationships, in meeting work demands, work might interfere with the family domain by reducing an individual’s ability to meet his/her family demands (Frone et al. 1992). As such, we propose that work-to-family conflict will have a direct positive effect on experiences of family-to-work conflict. Stated formally:  Hypothesis 5: Family-to-work conflict is positively related to work role conflict and work role ambiguity.  Hypothesis 6: Work-to-family conflict is positively related to family-to-work conflict. These six hypotheses are represented in Fig. 1, and constitute the omnibus model.

80

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

1.2. Age as a moderator As noted by Jex et al. (2007), age in and of itself is not of particular interest to researchers. Rather, of interest is how relationships between predictors and outcomes (i.e., stressors and strains) are affected as a function of the aging process. As such, we examine age as a moderator of the proposed omnibus model presented in Fig. 1. There are several reasons for doing so. First, although research is limited, past studies have shown, for example, that older employees respond more negatively to role stressors such as role conflict in terms of mental and physical health outcomes (i.e., Mayes, Barton, & Ganster, 1991). Second, as people grow older they often increase their overall task-related expertise. Increases in task-related expertise can serve as a resource to older workers when dealing with ambiguous work situations (Jex et al., 2007). That is, drawing on more diverse life experiences, older workers may approach ambiguous situations with more confidence, and may appraise the situations as less stressful. On the other hand, as individuals age they tend to experience a reduction in cognitive resources (for relevant discussion, see Jex et al., 2007), such as declines in working memory and processing speed. For this reason, older workers may react more negatively to stressful events than younger workers. Given these findings, there are disparate mechanisms by which age may impact relationships in the previously discussed omnibus model (Fig. 1). We anticipate age will have a moderating role in three different portions of the model; in terms of social support and role stress, social support and work–family conflict, and work–family conflict and role stressors. 1.2.1. Social support and role stress Socio-emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991, 1992) suggests that in later life, social exchanges function to regulate emotion. As people age, the costs and benefits of social exchanges become more salient than they might have been when individuals were younger. The general notion is that as people age, they narrow their social networks and devote more emotional resources to fewer relationships with close friends and family. Thus, older adults are more emotionally invested in their relationships than are younger individuals (Lang & Carstensen, 1994) and place more importance on family and friends as parts of their social networks (Gupta & Korte, 1994). In addition to this narrowing of social networks, there is also empirical evidence that the perceived availability of different types of social support is related to age. According to Prezza and Pacilli (2002), younger participants reported feeling more supported by both friends and a significant other, and that older adults, particularly those over age 66, perceived less support. Zautra (1983) also observed a decline in perceived social support in older participants. Interestingly, Turner and Marino (1994) report results that suggest when different sources of social support (i.e., spouse/partner, relatives, friends, and coworkers) are combined there is a curvilinear relationship between age and perceived social support. In their sample the authors report observing a convex relationship such that those ages 18–25 reported the lowest level of support and those between 35- and 45-years-old reporting the most perceived support. Reports of social support were again lower for the older age group (Turner & Marino, 1994). Generally though, data relating to the relationship between age and perceived social support are inconsistent (Turner & Marino, 1994). We suggest that an underlying issue relating to these inconsistencies is that, across studies, the type of social support being assessed varies.

.09 .13 Supervisor Support

-.24**

Work Role Conflict

.07 Work-to-Family Conflict

.27**

.14†

-.16**

Family Support

.27** .01

-.06 .17 Coworker Support

-.11**

Work Role Ambiguity

-.16**

.10**

.17 Family-to-Work Conflict

† p < .10, ** p < .01

Fig. 1. Conceptual omnibus model of work social support, work role stressors, and work–family conflict. Unstandardized estimates for full sample reported (N = 622). Squared multiple correlations for endogenous variables reported in italics.

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

81

Based on our review of the literature there does not appear to be a universally accepted way to segment the life course. However, for the purpose of this study we used a life stage perspective (Levinson, 1978), and tested our model across three separate age groups that include the preponderance of those in the workforce: 18–28 years, 29–45 years, and 46 years and older. These segments roughly correspond to chronological groupings that are likely to have some commonalities in the primary family and career tasks they are coping with. Furthermore, we propose that the impact of coworker and supervisor work social support on work role stressors will be strongest for those workers in the 46 and older group. If, as suggested by socio-emotional selectivity theory, older adults trim their social network, and devote more resources to important interpersonal relationships (Carstensen, 1991, 1992), relationships with coworkers and supervisor(s) might represent some of these important interpersonal relationships. As such, when older workers perceive a high level of support from these sources, they are more likely to perceive their work environment as less stressful, and report lower levels of work stressors (i.e., work role conflict and ambiguity).  Hypothesis 7: The impact of coworker and supervisor work social support on work role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) is strongest for those workers in the 46 and older group.

1.2.2. Social support and work–family conflict Drawing on a family life course perspective, Blanchard-Fields, Chen, and Hebert (1997) observed the greatest amount of inter-role conflict during peak child-rearing years. Cournoyer and Mahalik (1995) report that middle-aged men were more likely than younger men to experience conflict between work and personal life. As such, in terms of work social support from family, we suggest that strongest impact on family-to-work and work-to-family conflict will be observed in the 29–45 age group.  Hypothesis 8: The effect of work social support provided by family on family-to-work conflict and work-to-family conflict is strongest in the 29–45 age group.

1.2.3. Work–family conflict and role stressors In the remaining portion of our model we examine how family-to-work conflict is related to work role stressors, and how these role stressors are related to work–family conflict. Past research on work–family conflict and age provides little guidance on how these relationships may vary across age groups. In past research a negative or curvilinear relationship between age and work–family conflict (e.g., Grzywacz et al., 2002), no relationship (e.g., Allen, 2001; Bernas & Major, 2000; Cinamon & Rich, 2002; Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Kiewitz, 1999), a positive relationship (e.g., Burke & Greenglass, 1999), or some combination of relationships depending on the type of measure used have been observed (e.g., Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997; Stephens & Sommer, 1996). However, with the notable exception of the study by Grzywacz et al. (2002), few studies have explicitly examined the relationship between work–family conflict and age. Given these disparate findings, it is difficult to develop predictions based on previous empirical research. However, we suggest that an application of Conservation of Resources (COR) theory in studies of worker age and stress (Treadway et al., 2005) may provide a basis for developing testable hypotheses. Briefly, COR theory proposes that individuals are most susceptible to stress when resources such as energy, time, self-esteem, or socio-economic status are threatened, lost, or perceived as being inadequate in comparison to demands (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Treadway et al. (2005) used COR theory to argue that age functions as a moderator of the stressor–strain process because older workers, with increased life experiences, may have more demands, in the form of increased stressful life events, thus stretching available resources. As such, there should be stronger stressor–strain relationships for older workers. Consistent with this reasoning, they found that the performance (i.e., strain outcome) of older workers was more negatively affected by organizational politics (i.e., stressor) than younger workers. Drawing on Treadway et al. (2005) we suggest that the effect of work-to-family conflict on family-to-work conflict is strongest for the 46 and older age group. Older individuals may, given repeated exposure to a stressor (i.e., work-to-family conflict), react more negatively, resulting in the increased levels of the strain outcome (i.e., family-towork conflict). Further, we predict that the effect of family-to-work conflict on work role conflict and ambiguity will be weakest for the 28 and under age group. Again, drawing on Treadway et al. and their application of COR theory, younger workers may be more likely to perceive they have adequate resources to address given demands (i.e., family-to-work conflict). Along these lines, younger adults may be less likely to interpret family-to-work conflict as threat to resources given their limited exposure to the stressor over the course of their life, as compared to older adults. Stated formally:  Hypothesis 9: The effect of work-to-family conflict on family-to-work conflict is strongest for the 46 and older age group.  Hypothesis 10: The effect of family-to-work conflict on work role conflict and ambiguity is weakest for the 28 and under age group.

82

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

2. Methods 2.1. Procedure Participants were recruited through a peer-nomination web-based survey by trained undergraduate student recruiters. Student recruiters were instructed to send a provided e-mail invitation to working adults in any industry whom they knew personally and who met the eligibility requirements for the study (at least 18 years old and working at least 15 h a week). Recipients of the invitation e-mails were asked to follow the web-link supplied in the e-mail to complete the anonymous online survey. The survey took approximately 15 min to complete. Participation was voluntary. Student recruiters received nominal course extra credit for their involvement. The nature of the recruitment procedure does not allow us to calculate a survey response rate. 2.2. Participants In total, 735 individuals responded to the survey. Of these, 78 were removed because they reported working fewer than 15 hours a week. Another 18 participants were removed for failing to report their age, or for excessive missing data within a core construct. Given the nature of the current study, participants who reported working at least half of their paid work hours from home (n = 18) were also excluded, resulting in a final sample of 622 participants. Demographic information for the whole sample and for each age group is reported in Table 1. The sample is 61% female, approximately 50% were married or living with a life partner, 40.6% reported having at least one child at home 18 years or younger, 54.3% reported having a bachelors degree or higher, a variety of occupations were reported, and 44.1% reported their income as less than $75,000. For the youngest age group, participants between 18 and 28 years (n = 239), the mean age was 22.7 years (SD = 2.7). For the middle age group, participants between the ages of 29 and 45 (n = 153), the mean age was 37.9 years (SD = 5.3). For the oldest age group, participants ages 46 and older (n = 230), the mean age was 51.8 years (SD = 5.0). 2.3. Measures Unless otherwise indicated, participants responded using a 5-point Likert response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Table 1 Sample and subgroup demographics.

Sample size Mean age Percent female (%) Living status Married/living with life partner (%) In a serious relationship (%) Single (%) Number of children under the age of 18 living at home No children (%) One child (%) Two children (%) Three or more children (%) Education High School or some college (%) Bachelors degree (%) Beyond bachelors degree (%) Mean work hours Range of work hours Occupation Management and business and financial operations (%) Professional and related occupations (%) Education (%) Construction, production, installation, repair, and other related occupations (%) Income Under $30,000 (%) $30,000–$75,000 (%) $75,000 and over (%) Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.

Full sample

Group 1: 18–28

Group 2: 29–45

Group 3: 46+

622 37.2 (13.4) 61.3

239 22.7 (2.7) 61.1

153 37.9 (5.3) 62.1

230 51.8 (5.0) 60.9

52.7 17.8 22.0

11.7 39.3 46.0

75.2 8.5 11.8

80.4 1.7 3.9

59.6 18.3 15.6 5.6

79.5 12.6 5.4 1.7

37.9 17.6 28.8 14.4

53.5 24.8 17.4 3.9

45.7 36.2 18.0 38.6 (11.2) 15–90

50.6 41.4 7.1 35.8 (12.7) 15–90

35.9 35.3 28.8 40.2 (9.5) 15–70

46.5 31.3 22.1 40.6 (10.1) 15–65

18.6 18.2 11.4 6.6

15.1 13.4 6.7 6.7

27.5 22.9 15.7 4.0

16.5 20.0 13.5 8.2

12.1 32.0 45.0

28.0 39.3 18.8

.7 35.9 55.6

3.0 21.9 65.8

83

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

2.3.1. Work social support Work social support from coworkers was assessed with four items developed by Haynes, Wall, Bolden, and Stride (1999). Work social support from supervisor(s) was measured with a parallel set of four items modified to focus on the participants’ supervisor(s). For both scales, participants were given the stem, ‘‘To what extent can you. . .” A sample item from the coworker support scale is ‘‘count on your coworkers to listen to you when you need to talk about problems at work?” A sample item from the supervisor support scale is ‘‘count on your supervisor(s) to help you with a difficult task at work?” Work social support from family was assessed using four items developed by Baruch-Feldman et al. (2002). A sample item is, ‘‘When something goes wrong at work, I can talk it over with my friends or family.” 2.3.2. Work role stressors Work role conflict was assessed with four items developed by Ivancevich and Matteson (1976–2005); ‘‘I seem to receive conflicting requests from different people (e.g., coworkers, bosses).” Work role ambiguity was measured with four items developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970; ‘‘I know what my responsibilities are.”). Higher scores indicate higher levels of each of the work stressors. 2.3.3. Work–family conflict Work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were assessed with six items developed by Grzywacz, Frone, Brewer, and Kovner (2007). For each item participants were asked to respond by considering how often they experienced each situation in the last 3 months. Three items were used to assess work-to-family conflict (e.g., ‘‘How often did your job or career interfere with your home-life?”), and three separate items were used to assess family-to-work conflict (e.g., ‘‘How often did your home-life interfere with your job or career?”). Responses were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, to 5 = 5+ days per week). 2.3.4. Age Participants were asked to report their age in years. Based on the age reported, participants were grouped into one of three age groups: 28 and under, 29–45, and 46 and older. 3. Results Means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliability information, and correlations for the full sample are reported in Table 2. Examination of correlations between age and other study variables suggests that there are significant negative relationships between age and support from family, both work stressors, and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Further analyses of age effects are reported in Table 3. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicate significant differences between age groups for support from family [F(2, 619) = 6.21, p < .01], work role conflict [F(2, 619) = 8.20, p < .01], work role ambiguity [F(2, 619) = 20.20, p < .01], work-to-family conflict [F(2, 619) = 5.97, p < .01], and family-to-work conflict [F(2, 619) = 11.15, p < .01]. Scheffe post-hoc tests indicate that the oldest and youngest age groups differ significantly on support from family (the youngest group reports higher support from family—M = 4.14), and on work role conflict (the oldest group reports lower work role conflict—M = 2.31). In addition, the oldest group reports significantly lower work role ambiguity (M = 1.85) and work-to-family conflict (M = 1.55) than either of the other age groups. However, the middle age group reports significantly more family-to-work conflict (M = 1.17) than either of the other age groups. 3.1. Omnibus model analyses The six hypotheses proposed as part of the omnibus model (see Fig. 1) were tested using path analysis in AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006). Four measures of model fit were calculated: v2, comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approxTable 2 Means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities,a and intercorrelations based on full sample (N = 622).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Age Supervisor social supportb Coworker social supportb Family social supportb Work Role Conflictb Work role ambiguityb Work-to-family conflictc Family-to-work conflictc a

Mean

SD

1

37.2 3.36 3.43 3.96 2.50 2.09 1.78 .90

13.41 1.23 1.05 1.04 .95 .77 1.26 .94

—

Internal reliabilities reported along the diagonal. b Scale range 1–5. c Scale range 0–6. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

2 .06 .01 .15** .15** .23** .12** .11*

(.95) .60** .27** .35** .35** .10* .05

3

(.92) .27** .24** .31** .03 .03

4

(.93) .08* .15** .02 .18**

5

6

7

8

(.86) .44** .25** .10*

(.84) .21** .18**

(.90) .37**

(.87)

84

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

Table 3 Examination of mean level age differences across core constructs. 28 and under

Supervisor social support Coworker social support Family social support Work role conflict Work role ambiguity Work-to-family conflict Family-to-work conflict

29–45

46 and older

F

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

3.27 3.43 4.14a 2.67a 2.26a 1.88a .91a

1.24 1.03 .98 .94 .83 1.25 .91

3.42 3.44 3.91 2.52 2.21b 1.94b 1.17a,b

1.24 1.05 1.02 1.02 .73 1.29 1.02

3.40 3.44 3.81a 2.31a 1.85a,b 1.55a,b .72b

1.22 1.08 1.09 .90 .67 1.21 .86

1.04 .00 6.21** 8.20** 20.20** 5.97** 11.15**

df = 2, 619 for all tests. Means that share superscripts (either a or b) significantly differ from each other. For example, for family social support, the mean for the 28 and under age group significantly differs from the 46 and older age group. ** p < .01.

imation (RMSEA) and standard root mean residual (SRMR). A non-significant v2 indicates good model fit; however, v2 is sensitive to sample size. A CFI value of .95 or higher, a RMSEA value of .06 or lower, and a SRMR value of .08 or lower indicate good model fit (Hu & Butler, 1999). The overall fit of the omnibus model was good [v2(6) = 4.21, p > .05, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .02]. Unstandardized path estimates are reported in Fig. 1, squared multiple correlations for endogenous variables are reported in italics. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported; supervisor support was negatively related to work role conflict (B = .24, p < .01), but coworker support was not significantly related (B = .06, p > .05). When individuals reported a supportive supervisor, they were less likely to report issues of role conflict, this relationship was not observed for coworker support. Hypothesis 2 was fully supported; both supervisor and coworker support were negative related to work role ambiguity (B = .16 and .11, respectively, p < .01). Perceived support from supervisor(s) and coworkers was related to lower perceived role ambiguity in the work role. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Work role conflict was positively related to work-to-family conflict (B = .27, p < .01); work role ambiguity was not (B = .14, p > .05). Hypothesis 4 was also partially supported. Although family support was negatively related to family-to-work conflict (B = .16, p < .01), it was not related to work-to-family conflict (B = .09, p > .05). Hypothesis 5 was partially supported. Family-to-work conflict was positively related to role ambiguity (B = .10, p < .01), but not to role conflict (B = .01, p < .05). Thus, perceptions that family conflicts with work are positively related to perceptions that the work role is ambiguous, but not role conflict. Hypothesis 6 was supported; work-to-family conflict was positively related to family-to-work conflict (B = .27, p < .01). Overall, the squared multiple correlations (i.e., the variance explained for the endogenous constructs reported in italics in Fig. 1) are small. The square multiple correlations range from 7% (work-to-family conflict) to 17% (family-to-work conflict). 3.2. Multiple groups analyses Multiple groups analysis, using AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006), was used to examine potential age related differences in the model. Initial review of the unconstrained structural model demonstrated good model fit [v2(18) = 19.90, p > .05, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .01, SRMR = .02]. These results indicate that when parameter estimates were set free across the age groups, in essence replicating the omnibus model, the model fit the data well. When the structural path estimates were constrained to be equal for the three age groups (i.e., equality across the age groups was enforced), a significant drop in model fit was observed [v2-difference(22) = 40.38, p < .01]. This significant drop in fit suggests that the pattern of relationships between constructs differs across the three groups. Related to our general research question, this finding suggests that ignoring age as part of the modeling process can mask important relationships. However, this test does not indicate where the significant differences in the model exist. Unstandardized path estimates for the three age groups are reported in Table 4. To examine which path estimates differ systematically as a function of age group a series of v2-difference tests were conducted. Five pairs of path estimates were found to significantly differ as a function of age group (see Table 4). In partial support of Hypothesis 7, the path from coworker support to work role conflict for the 46 and older age group was significantly different in magnitude than for the 28 and under age group [ .19 and .07, respectively, v2-difference(1) = 7.6, p < .05]. The protective effect of coworker support on experiences of work role conflict was significantly stronger for the 46 and older age group than the 28 and under age group. In partial support of Hypothesis 8, the 29–45 age group showed significantly stronger relationships between work social support and both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict as compared to the 46 and older age group [for work-to-family conflict: B = .21 and .12, respectively, v2-difference(1) = 7.0, p < .05; for family-to-work conflict: B = .28 and .10, respectively, v2-difference(1) = 4.1, p < .05]. The relationship between these constructs did not differ in strength when comparing the 29–45 age group to the 28 and under age group.

85

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90 Table 4 Unstandardized path estimates based on multiple groups analyses. Predictors

Outcomes Work role conflict <28

Supervisor social support Coworker social support

.27** .07

29–45 .31** .05

Work role ambiguity 46+

<28

.13* .19**

.16** .11 

29–45 .18** .19**

46+

Work-to-family conflict

Family-to-work conflict

<28

<28

Family social support

.02

Work role conflict Work role ambiguity Work-to-family conflict

.16  .18 

Family-to-work conflict

.05

.02

.06

.16**

.01

29–45

46+

29–45

46+

.13** .08  .21* .35** .01

.12  .35** .08

.18**

.28**

.10*

.24**

.15*

.34**

.04

For all predictor–outcome relationships, v2-difference tests were conducted to examine in the path estimates different as a function of age groups. For a specific predictor–outcome relationship, those path estimates that were significantly different from one another (i.e., v2-difference(1) > 3.84) were underlined to indicate this statistically significant difference.   p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Hypothesis 9 was also partially supported. The effect of work-to-family conflict on family-to-work conflict was significantly stronger for the 46 and older age group compared to the 29–45 age group [.34 and .15, respectively, v2-difference(1) = 6.1, p < .05]. However, Hypothesis 10 was not supported. Contrary to the hypothesis, the effect of family-towork conflict on work role ambiguity was significantly stronger for the under 28 age group compared to the 29–45 age group [.16 and .00, respectively, v2-difference(1) = 4.0, p < .05]. Additionally, no differences were found for work role ambiguity across the three age groups. 3.3. Comparing the omnibus model to the multiple groups models In comparing the results of the multiple groups models to the omnibus model, several results warrant additional attention. First, in the omnibus model the path from coworker support to work role conflict was not significant. However, in the multiple groups analysis, the path was significant and negative for the 46 and older age group (B = .19, p < .01). Similarly, in the omnibus model the path from work social support from family was not significant. However, in the multiple groups analysis, the path was significant and negative for the 29–45 age group (B = .21, p < .01) but positive for the 46 and older age group (B = .12, p < .10). Finally, the significant path observed in the omnibus model from family-to-work conflict to work role ambiguity is being driven predominantly by the 28 and under age group (B = .16, p < .01); this path was not statistically significant for the other two age groups. In Table 5, squared multiple correlations for the endogenous variables in the model are reported. Overall, it appears that when the model is examined separately for the different age groups, the amount of variance accounted for in the endogenous variables is generally highest for two older age groups, ranging from 12% to 25%. For the 28 and under age group, the amount of variance explained ranges from 6% to 17%. In terms of variance explained, for the 29–45 and the 46 and older age groups, the variance explained for the different constructs is higher in comparison to the omnibus model. 4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate an omnibus model of the relationships between work-related social support, work stressors, and work–family conflict, and then to investigate age as a moderator of the proposed model. Consistent with our hypotheses, the relationships in the model varied in both strength and significance for different age groups. This supports our suggestion that age should be treated as a variable of interest, rather than a descriptor variable or noise in the data. Of particular interest is the general finding that conclusions that might be drawn based on the omnibus model take on a slightly different and more complicated meaning in the multiple groups analysis. Consequently, we present our discussion of the

Table 5 Squared multiple correlations for different age group models.

Work role conflict Work role ambiguity Work-to-family conflict Family-to-work conflict

28 and under

29–45

46 and older

.11 .17 .06 .16

.17 .25 .12 .14

.13 .13 .22 .22

86

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

results in four sections, coworker and supervisor social support, role stressors, family social support, and work–family conflict. In each section we compare and contrast results from the omnibus model to results from the multiple groups analysis. We then provide discussion of study limitations and present directions for future research. 4.1. Coworker and supervisor social support Consistent with past research (e.g., Carlson & Perrewe, 1999), the test of the omnibus model showed that supervisor support was negatively related to both work role conflict and work role ambiguity. Supportive supervision, then, appears to be a resource that reduces the perception of these role stressors. The test of the omnibus model further indicated that coworker support was negatively related to work role ambiguity, but not to work role conflict. Thus, the interpretation might be that coworker support is a resource people can draw upon when dealing with unclear expectations in the work role, but that there may be little even supportive coworkers can do to alleviate the perception of conflicting obligations. However, when results from the multiple groups model are considered, the findings from the omnibus model must be interpreted differently. The test of the multiple groups model suggests that although the effects of supervisor support on work role conflict and work role ambiguity are consistent for the three age groups, relationships for coworker support across are not. Coworker support was significantly negatively related to role ambiguity for the 29–45 age group, but not the other two age groups. Additionally, coworker support was significantly negatively related to role conflict for the 46 and older age group, but not the other two age groups. Thus, depending on the age group of interest, the effect of coworker support as a buffer of workplace stressors appears to be different. These results partially support Hypothesis 7. In hypothesizing the potential impact of employee age on the relationships in the omnibus model, we looked to previous research that employed a life stage approach for studying age groups (e.g., Turner & Marino, 1994). Based on these studies, we proposed that the relationship between sources of work-related support originating in the work domain and work role stressors should be strongest for workers in the oldest age group. This hypothesis was partially supported in that the negative relationship between coworker support and work role conflict was significantly strongest for the oldest age group. In fact, the relationship was not significant for either of the other two age groups. This is consistent with the idea proposed in socio-emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991, 1992) that older workers have trimmed their social networks to include only those individuals who are most important. However, contrary to our hypothesis, the impact of coworker support on role ambiguity was only significant for the middle age group, and the paths did not significantly differ among the three age groups. These results suggest that although the 29–45 age group is the primary driver of the negative relationship observed in the omnibus model, the pattern of relationships is consistent for the other two age groups. It is possible that the lack of significant relationships for the other two groups in the multiple groups analysis was simply a function of insufficient power to detect effects, rather than an actual functional difference between groups. This relationship warrants attention in future research to help clarify the pattern of relationships. 4.2. Role stressors In terms of work role stressors and work-to-family conflict, results from the omnibus model suggest that work role conflict is positively related to work-to-family conflict, but work role ambiguity is not. Thus, based on the omnibus model, it might be inferred that employees who experience conflicting obligations within the work role experience some spillover of that conflict from work into the family domain. But, those who experience unclear expectations or other forms of ambiguity do not experience an increase in conflict from work to family. Again, results from the multiple groups model suggest that ignoring age in the omnibus model masks important relationships, specifically between work role conflict and work-to-family conflict. Although the multiple groups model analysis indicated no significant relationship between role ambiguity and work-to-family conflict across the age groups, results indicate significant age differences in the relationship between work role conflict and work-to-family conflict. As such, work role conflict was significantly related to work-to-family conflict for the two older age groups, but not for the 28 and under age group. It is possible that for the two older age groups, conflicting obligations in the work role results in a decrease in available resources, like time or energy, which could have been devoted to family matters, resulting in experienced work-to-family conflict. This mechanism may not hold for the younger age group because they may have fewer demands in the home domain. Thus, even though additional resources are taken from the home domain and applied to the work domain, this does not result in experienced inter-domain conflict because the impact of the loss of resources to the family domain is negligible. Given the potential for loss of resources, like time and energy, these results seem to indicate that a modified application of COR theory, wherein age differences are more explicitly incorporated, may have a significant impact on both the work–family and the larger stressor–strain literatures. 4.3. Family social support Work-related social support stemming from the family was hypothesized to be related not to work role stressors, but rather to work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. In the omnibus model, this hypothesis was partially supported. Family support was negatively related to family-to-work conflict but was not significantly related to work-to-family conflict. Additionally, based on research that suggests that work–family conflict is often strongest for working people in the child-rearing

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

87

stage of life (e.g., Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997), we suggested that work social support from family would be most strongly related to family-to-work conflict and work-to-family conflict for workers in the middle age group. This hypothesis was partially supported. Family support was related to family-to-work conflict for all three age groups, but this relationship was significantly stronger for people in the middle age group as compared to the older age group. There was no difference between the youngest age group and either of the other two groups. In line with the proposed hypothesis, these results suggest that when individuals believe their family ‘‘understands” what is going on at work they are less likely to feel that their family interferes with their work life. Furthermore, the importance of family social support for work seems to be amplified for those individuals who have the most family related demands, specifically those individuals between the ages of 29 and 45. Overall, the majority of those in the youngest age group reported no children under age 18 at home (79.5%), while only 37.9% of the middle age group reported the same. Slightly more than half of the oldest age group reported no children under age 18 at home (53.5%). Additionally, the 29–45 age group reported significantly more family-to-work conflict compared to other two age groups. In terms of the effects of family social support on work-to-family conflict, the relationships are not so clear cut. In the omnibus model a non-significant correlation was observed between family social support and work-to-family conflict, contrary to the proposed hypothesis. However, based on the multiple groups model, it appears the non-significant correlation observed in the omnibus model is a result of the relationships within the age groups canceling each other out. More specifically, a significant negative correlation was observed for the 29–45 age group. However, for the 28 and under age group the relationship was near zero, and the observed relationship for the 46 and older age group was positive. Thus, in line with Hypothesis 8, family social support appears to act as an important buffer for the 29–45 age group, but not for either the oldest or youngest groups. These results may again be a function of at home demographics of the three age groups as the 29–to 45-year-old age group reported a higher percentage of home demands (i.e., dependent care responsibilities). However, we would note that we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the same models, this time controlling for dependent care responsibilities (number of children); including this control did not significantly alter the pattern of relationships observed within and across the three age groups. 4.4. Work–family conflict As predicted in the omnibus model, work-to-family conflict was positively related to family-to-work conflict, indicating that the perceptions of the two directions of conflict are linked. In considering the three age groups, the effect of work-tofamily conflict on family-to-work conflict was significant and positive for all three. Interestingly, although the 29–45 age group reported significantly more work-to-family conflict than the 46 and older age group, the positive relationship between work-to-family and family-to-work conflict was stronger for the oldest group, in support of Hypothesis 9. Two possible explanations, relating to pre-existing expectations, could be at work here. First, the 46 and older age group reported relatively low levels of conflict, and may, therefore, come to expect less conflict. However, when conflict does present itself, even low to moderate levels of conflict may have a significant impact. Alternatively, those in the 29–45 age group, given their position in the life cycle, may be come to expect conflict; reports of conflict at the mean level support this proposition. Given that, when work-to-family conflict occurs, the impact on family-to-work conflict is not particularly strong. Finally, as part of the omnibus model we suggested that family-to-work conflict would be positively related to work role stressors. Results here are generally weak. As indicated in the omnibus model (see Fig. 1), family-to-work conflict was not significantly related to work role conflict nor was this relationship significant for any of the three age groups. However, although a significant positive correlation was found between family-to-work conflict and work role ambiguity in the omnibus model, this effect seems to be primarily driven by the 28 and under age group (contrary to Hypothesis 10). Overall, although it is interesting to note that family-to-work conflict appears to be indirectly related to work-to-family conflict via role ambiguity for the younger age group, generally there is little support suggesting that role ambiguity and role conflict serve as mediating variables between family-to-work and work-to-family conflict. 4.5. Limitations Although the results of this study are informative, indicating that age is an important moderator to consider in future research on the work–family interface, there are several limitations that should be considered in interpreting these results. First and foremost is the potential confounding of age and cohort in this study. It is not possible for us to rule out the possibility that the effects we observed are a function of cohort membership, rather than actual age differences. For example, the mean level differences in role conflict could be a function of the ‘‘younger” cohort being less capable of managing stress than ‘‘older” cohorts because of historical and sociological influences. Future research should seek to employ longitudinal designs to help clarify possible age related differences vs. cohort differences. Longitudinal as well as cohort-sequential designs would also allow researchers to directly observe intra-individual changes over time and address some of the limitations in the current study. A related limitation is that our age groups, which are based on work by Levinson (1978) are all relatively broad in their respective age ranges. As such there exists a lack of granularity in terms of group membership. Thus, within our three age groups there is still considerable opportunity for heterogeneity which influence the nature of the relationships observed. However, this heterogeneity within our age groups also has the advantage of increasing the generalizability of our study

88

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

results. Furthermore, it is possible that our age groups, which are based on recommendations from Levinson’s work, are inappropriate given the ever increasing complexity of the work–family interface, with continued demographic shifts, evolving technologies, and the changing nature of work and careers (Major & Germano, 2006). To this end, rather than seeking to break chronological age up into discrete segments, future research, may wish to examine more dynamic models of adult development that have a looser coupling with chronological age. It is also possible that individuals working fewer hours (e.g., part-time workers) might systematically differ from full time workers, and be driving some of our results. This issue is particular salient for the under 28 years of age group, which reported working fewer hours a week than the other two age groups. To address this concern, the models were re-analyzed, this time controlling for total hours worked; including this control did not significantly alter the pattern of relationships observed within and across the three age groups. Another potential limitation is the fact that participants were drawn from a single convenience sample; to the extent that the sample is overly homogeneous with respect to some of the variables included in the study, this has the potential to affect the magnitude and pattern of observed relationships. Nonetheless, the sample includes adults from geographically dispersed regions, multiple organizations, multiple organizational levels, multiple employment sectors, and multiple family situations. Finally, our measures were self-reported, which raises the possibility that common method variance may have spuriously produced the relationships that we observed among variables. However, we note that common method variance should only be considered a serious issue if there appears to be a systematic and pervasive inflation of observed relationships (James, Gent, Hater, & Corey, 1979). Although we do not want to downplay the possibility that common method bias could be at play, the range of correlations in our study, absence of multicollinearity, and absence of non-intuitive relationships leads us to believe that common method variance is not a significant concern in our study. With these limitations is mind, it may be best to consider the results of the current study as exploratory. However, they do provide an important foundation for future research to draw on. 4.6. Directions for future research Based on the results of the current study, two lines of future research seem to present themselves. First, at a more focused level, is the need for continued research on why different relationships were observed as a function of age. Drawing on a variety of perspectives and theoretical paradigms, we sought to provide a basic grounding for why differences might be observed. However, our hypotheses were relatively broad and not always supported in the directions predicted. Additional theoretical consideration should be given in terms of hypothesizing why age differences exist. As noted previously, COR theory may have particular relevance in addressing this need. Of particular note, we suggest that the life course perspective might need updating as the population ages, trends toward starting families later continue, and more and more working adults find it necessary to stay in the workforce longer. For instance, for older workers, the variables included in our model do a better job of accounting for variance in perceptions of the work–family interface stressors than they do for accounting for variance in the workplace stressors. The pattern is the opposite for younger and middle-aged workers, where the model variables account for more of the variance in the workplace stressors relative to the amount of variance they accounted for in work–family interface stressors. A more detailed examination of these patterns of relationships seems particularly warranted in future research. At a more macro level, our results support the need to move away from testing omnibus models of work–family conflict and toward the examination of different relationships based on other important individual differences. Although our study was intended to move away from testing omnibus models, it could be argued that we still tested a relatively omnibus model, just broken down across age groups. Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, and Lambert (2007) note the vast majority of work– family research can be described as being single-source data with an over emphasis on professional employees. Increasingly, researchers are acknowledging that in order to advance the field we must work to expand our focus of interest (e.g., Casper, Weltman, & Kwesiga, 2007; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). For example, in addition to dual-earner couples with children, we need to incorporate other family structures (e.g., single-parent household, extended family/multi-generational household, household with no children) and we need to examine the work–family interface beyond the professional workforce (e.g., Casper, Eby et al., 2007; Casper, Weltman et al., 2007; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005). Consequently, models of the work–family interface should be considered in the context of non-professionals, part-time workers, self-employed workers, hourly workers, contingent workers, as well as individuals who work non-traditional shift schedules. We suggest that it is important to begin testing relevant hypotheses on more homogenous samples to ensure important relationships are not being masked. However, the use of more homogenous samples, although important, it is not necessarily sufficient; to ensure relationships being identified in these homogenous samples are truly unique it is important to make comparisons against other distinctly different samples. Without making these comparisons it is impossible to know if the observed relationships are limited to that group of individuals, or share commonalities with other groups, and thus are more generalizable. More specifically, future research should examine differences in known relationships within the work–family interface as a function of managerial status (e.g., manager vs. non-manager), family structure (e.g., dual-earner family vs. single income family), occupation type (e.g., blue vs. white collar), and work schedule (e.g., day shift vs. other shift schedules). In addition to demographic individual difference variables, other constructs of interest might include financial strain, role centrality, and domain segmentation–integration preferences. Analytics used to examine these relationships could range from basic mod-

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

89

eration analyses all the way up to conducting multiple groups moderated-mediational models. Such analyses may yield important intervention implications. For example, our findings imply that taking a one-size-fits-all approach to helping workers manage work and family demands may not always be effective and that workers in different age groups may experience work–family demands in different ways. 5. Conclusion In the current study we sought to examine if important relationships are masked when participant age is ignored when modeling constructs relevant to the work–family interface. Given relationships between several constructs, such as social support and work–family conflict, were found to differ as a function of the different age groups, our results suggest that work–family research should move away from treating age as a covariate, and examine it as a true construct of interest. In addition to the relationship differences between constructs, several mean level differences between constructs are also found to exist. As a whole, our results indicate that conclusions that may be drawn based on an omnibus model of the work–family interface may need to be interpreted differently when relevant individual differences variables, such as age, are considered as important moderators. To further advance work–family scholarship, future research should seek to consider not only the role age may play in moderating important relationships in the work–family interface, but other relevant individual differences variables as well. References Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7 [Computer software]. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation. Barling, J., & Macewen, K. E. (1992). Linking working experiences to facets of marital functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 573–583. Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2005). Older workers. In J. Barling, K. Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 431–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press. Baruch-Feldman, C., Schwartz, J., Brondolo, E., & Ben-Dayan, D. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 84–93. Bellavia, G. M., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Work–family conflict. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 113–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bernas, K. H., & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work–family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Hebert, C. E. (1997). Interrole conflict as a function of life stage, gender, and gender-related personality attributes. Sex Roles, 37(3/4), 155–174. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1999). Work–family conflict, spouse support, and nursing staff well-being during organizational restructuring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 327–336. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054. Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540. Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Socioemotional selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 17, 195–217. Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43. Casper, W. J., Weltman, D., & Kwesiga, E. (2007). Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 478–501. Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Profiles of attribution of importance to life role and their implications for the work–family conflict. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 212–220. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Cournoyer, R. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (1995). Cross-sectional study of gender role conflict examining college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 11–19. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 50, 168–194. Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work. Journal of Management, 11, 39–53. Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–333. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 50, 145–167. Gordon, J. R., Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship among work–family conflict and enhancement, organizational work–family culture, and work outcomes for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 350–364. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323. Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Konarski, R. (1998). Components of burnout, resources, and gender-related differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1088–1106. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51, 28–36. Grzywacz, J. G., Frone, M. R., Brewer, C. S., & Kovner, C. T. (2007). Quantifying work–family conflict among registered nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 414–426. Gupta, V., & Korte, C. (1994). The effects of a confidant and a peer group on the well-being of single elders. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 39, 293–302.

90

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 78–90

Haynes, C. E., Wall, T. D., Bolden, R. I., & Stride, C. (1999). Measures of perceived work characteristics for health services research: Test of a measurement model and normative data. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 257–275. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. Hu, L., & Butler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. Stress diagnostic survey, University Of Houston, Houston, TX, prepared and revised 1976–2005, permission required for use. James, L., Gent, M., Hater, J., & Corey, K. (1979). Correlates of psychology influence: An illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment. Personnel Psychology, 32, 563–588. Jex, S. M., Wang, M., & Zarubin, A. (2007). Aging and occupational health. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st century (pp. 199–223). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Kumari, K., & Sharma, S. (1990). Social support, organizational role stress and well-being: A study of medicos. Psychological Studies, 35, 163–169. Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology and Aging, 9, 315–324. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf. Major, D. A., & Germano, L. M. (2006). The changing nature of work and its impact on the work-home interface. In F. J. Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work-life balance: A phychological perspective (pp. 1–38). New York: Psychological Press. Mayes, B. T., Barton, M. E., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). An exploration of the moderating effect of age on job stressor–employee strain relationships. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 289–308. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312. Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation of the negative effects of work–family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 318–326. Pompe, G. V. D., & Heus, P. D. (1993). Work stress, social support, and strains among male and female managers. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 6, 215–229. Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2006). Managing incidents of work–family conflict: A decision-making perspective. Human Relations, 59, 1179–1212. Prezza, M., & Pacilli, M. G. (2002). Perceived social support from significant others, family and friends and several socio-demographic characteristics. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12, 422–429. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. L. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 35–58. Schultz, K. S., & Adams, G. A. (2007). Aging and work in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(3), 475–486. Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Witt, L. A., & Goodman, J. M. (2005). The role of age in the perceptions of politics–job performance relationship: A three-study constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 872–881. Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(3), 193–212. van Daalen, G., Willemsen, Tineke M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work–family conflict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 462–476. Zautra, A. (1983). Social resources and the quality of life. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 275–290.